/m/orioles

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I sorta agree with you but you've got this backwards. Death can be the result of any physical assault for exactly these reasons. Therefore basic and aggravated assault should carry much harsher penalties than they do. Same with drunk driving (at least "seriously impaired" driving however you want to define that).

I'm fine with that, as long as you bring the penalties for those with unfortunate results down to that same higher level. And I am on record for wanting harsher penalties for drunk driving as well, while bringing those that result in vehicular manslaughter way down, with the actual sentence depending more on the level of recklessness, and less on the outcome.

If you drive drunk, you are basically playing the lottery with your and other people's lives. If two drivers act equally recklessly, than what they did should be considered equally bad. Giving the guy who fortunately only drove his car into a cornfield a slap on the wrist, while sending the guy who drove his into an intersection away for a decade plus makes no sense at all.

You guys are rather predictable. If you see more than one forumer talking tough on the main site it's a pretty good bet that there is a smug conversation going on in the forum about whatever you guys are railing about.

If two drivers act equally recklessly, than what they did should be considered equally bad. Giving the guy who fortunately only drove his car into a cornfield a slap on the wrist, while sending the guy who drove his into an intersection away for a decade plus makes no sense at all.

To some extent, laws are devised so that injured parties (or their survivors) don't continue to feel aggrieved when they leave the courthouse. If a drunk driver who killed only faced the same penalty as one who did not, then the victims survivors would be likely to continue the matter via vendetta.

To some extent, laws are devised so that injured parties (or their survivors) don't continue to feel aggrieved when they leave the courthouse. If a drunk driver who killed only faced the same penalty as one who did not, then the victims survivors would be likely to continue the matter via vendetta.

That the family of the victim might behave like ######## is not a good reason to throw somebody in jail for 20 years, who has done nothing to deserve that harsh of a treatment. In fact, it's morally abhorrent.

Arriving here late to the party, but I wanted to defend some of the other posters. I havent scrolled the entire thread...

If someone was to teach a self defense class for women and one of the rules was "Dont put yourself into dangerous situations. Be aware of your surroundings." Would anyone get upset with this piece of advice?

OK? So someone suggests something similar about being in a ball park, dont LOSE YOUR MINDS!

From what I gather and McCoy and the other guy are just mentioning a bit of PROSPECTIVE things to think about. It's not blaming the victim or anything like that.

If two drivers act equally recklessly, than what they did should be considered equally bad. Giving the guy who fortunately only drove his car into a cornfield a slap on the wrist, while sending the guy who drove his into an intersection away for a decade plus makes no sense at all.

But let's take this a step further. What if the guy who only drives his car into a cornfield lives in a one horse town where there is literally nothing but cornfields between the bar and his house, while the guy who drives into an intersection lives in midtown Manhattan? By your rules, isn't the former acting less recklessly and thus should receive a lighter penalty? If I explode a pressure cooker bomb in my empty backyard, should I get the same punishment as somebody who does it at the finish line of the Boston Marathon?

But let's take this a step further. What if the guy who only drives his car into a cornfield lives in a one horse town where there is literally nothing but cornfields between the bar and his house, while the guy who drives into an intersection lives in midtown Manhattan? By your rules, isn't the former acting less recklessly and thus should receive a lighter penalty? If I explode a pressure cooker bomb in my empty backyard, should I get the same punishment as somebody who does it at the finish line of the Boston Marathon?

I think he'd say the two drivers (or the two bombers) weren't acting equally recklessly, and thus shouldn't necessarily face the same punishment. The argument, which I'm inclined to side with, says the degree of recklessness matters when meting justice, but the more fickle end result of two equally reckless actions should not.

If you drive drunk, you are basically playing the lottery with your and other people's lives. If two drivers act equally recklessly, than what they did should be considered equally bad. Giving the guy who fortunately only drove his car into a cornfield a slap on the wrist, while sending the guy who drove his into an intersection away for a decade plus makes no sense at all.

I personally think anyone that gets a DUI should do at least some jail time. And repeat offenders should get long sentences. That said, sometimes in life you just get lucky. Carlton Fisk got lucky. The guy that hits an SUV with several kids in it didn't. But he still has to get a harsher sentence than Fisk who, admittedly thanks to nothing more than dumb luck, killed ... corn. To treat these acts the same, you either have to let the first guy out of jail way too soon or lock Fisk up way too long.

I will say, in a similar vein, it's always struck me as somewhat unjust that attempted murderers usually get much lighter sentences than murderers. So, your bullet misses a vital organ by a fraction and you are therefore less of a menace to society? You basically get rewarded for being bad at murder.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this site take such a clearly indefensible stand -- that someone deserves to get the bejesus beaten out of them if they wear the wrong laundry in a public place -- then so resolutely double and triple and quadruple down on it, insulting everyone along the way. Truly epic trolling.

I think he'd say the two drivers (or the two bombers) weren't acting equally recklessly, and thus shouldn't necessarily face the same punishment. The argument, which I'm inclined to side with, says the degree of recklessness matters when meting justice, but the more fickle end result does not of two equally reckless actions should not.

OK, let's say I'm a poor bomb maker. Though I wanted to kill many people at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, my bomb only made a lot of smoke and did little more than make a lot of people cough. Should I face the death penalty?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this site take such a clearly indefensible stand -- that someone deserves to get the bejesus beaten out of them if they wear the wrong laundry in a public place -- then so resolutely double and triple and quadruple down on it, insulting everyone along the way. Truly epic trolling.

OK, let's say I'm a poor bomb maker. Though I wanted to kill many people at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, my bomb only made a lot of smoke and did little more than make a lot of people cough. Should I face the death penalty?

Well, leave death penalty out of it for now. You should get a very similar sentence to the guy whose bomb went off successfully, and managed to kill and main lots of people. And you should get a lot more than the guy who likes to dabble with explosives, and set one off in his backyard and ends up killing a boy hiding behind a fence trying to get a peek. Intent and predictability should matter vastly more than results in any just legal system. If you place a bomb in the middle of a crowd you have every reason to believe it will cause a lot of casualties, and indeed you placed it there for that exact reason. The guy in his back yard did not expect to hurt anybody, nor had any reason to suspect he would.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this site take such a clearly indefensible stand -- that someone deserves to get the bejesus beaten out of them if they wear the wrong laundry in a public place -- then so resolutely double and triple and quadruple down on it, insulting everyone along the way. Truly epic trolling.

Who took that stand? Who was insulting whom?

Um, that would be you, and you, respectively. (Protip: When you can't see the sun anymore, it's time to stop digging.)

I will say, in a similar vein, it's always struck me as somewhat unjust that attempted murderers usually get much lighter sentences than murderers. So, your bullet misses a vital organ by a fraction and you are therefore less of a menace to society? You basically get rewarded for being bad at murder.

Yes, all else being equal, people who are bad at murder are less of a menace to society than people who are good at murder.

You called the victim "stupid" and have attacked numerous posters who called you out on your idiocy. You've been nasty and sarcastic, and for what? To defend cretins who beat up people in a public place because the victims are wearing the wrong cap? Really? Really?

I've got a friend whose niece who was raped; maybe you should explain to her how that was 30% her fault, too. (Better yet, explain that to her uncle, you Internet Tough Guy, you.)

Seriously, ace, you're taking a pounding here. Time to quit now before you lose all credibility.

I've attacked numerous posters? That's an odd way at looking at those conversations? I haven't been nasty or sarcastic about this subject at all.

To defend cretins who beat up people in a public place because the victims are wearing the wrong cap? Really? Really?

You sure do love strawmen.

The 30% with a question mark and the whole post you're taking that from was a statement in which I was saying that I don't know how much the victim's own mistakes cost him and that it doesn't matter anyway. Sunday Silence in post 112 was able to grasp what I was saying.

Time to quit now before you lose all credibility.

Post 31 was my last post on this topic. You guys have spent the last 100 posts going meta. There is nothing I have said in this thread that is going to make me lose credibility. This is the internet and this is BTF. People say something that others think is incredibly stupid all the time and yet the arguments and debates continue. Your act of declaring victory and then trying to shut the door behind you is getting kind of stale. If you want me to stop talking about the subject you should a)realize that I did stop talking about it 100 posts ago and b)stop bringing it up or is your desire for the last word or at the very least the need to make sure everyone knows your opinion so strong that you can't help yourself?

Talking about Megabus, alcohol, and going meta with you counts toward arguing this topic?

Shorter McCoy: "He was TOO a poopy-head for wearing that cap and WHY DOES EVERYBODY HATE ME?!"

It amuses me to no end to see someone consistently channel their own feelings and views onto another human being based on no evidence whatsoever.

edit: I see that I have another statement at post 68 that talks about the issue but I guess if you are being a troll you can read post 68 as insulting and snarky though it is a well-mannered and reasonable statement of mine.

It amuses me to no end to see someone consistently channel their own feelings and views onto another human being based on no evidence whatsoever.

Are you really this dense? Or someone who defends the indefensible just for the lulz?

a well-mannered and reasonable statement of mine.

Yes, you're nothing if not well-mannered and reasonable. [/eyeroll]

Look, sonny boy, it's 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, and I've got better things to do than argue with some twit who's noodling around on his Daddy's computer. I'll let the other posters have at you for awhile.

Are you really this dense? Or someone who defends the indefensible just for the lulz?

Who am I defending?

Yes, you're nothing if not well-mannered and reasonable. [/eyeroll]

Was post 68 or was it not well mannered and reasonable?

Look, sonny boy, it's 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, and I've got better things to do than argue with some twit who's noodling around on his Daddy's computer. I'll let the other posters have at you for awhile.

Next!

Once again the person throwing around accusations of insulting behavior throws out insults and acts like a troll.

If wearing an opposing team's hat is an exercise in poor judgment, it must be similarly "provacative" to wear a political button or affix a bumper sticker to your car, since neither major political party ever commands much more than 50% of the voters and many people feel more strongly about their politics than their sports teams. Religious displays must be similarly "dangerous" by that reasoning.

Is there a history that is rather current of violence happening because of a bumper sticker? I don't think there is so is it a reasonable assumption to make that displaying your political affiliation is a rather safe thing to do? I think it would be.

Is there a history of violence towards religion? Yes there is. Can one safely display what religion they are part of in all parts of the world at all times? I don't think so. Can they do it pretty safely in America? For the most part yes. Will their life be hassle free? Probably not so if they don't want to be hassled then, yes, they probably shouldn't display their religion. Is that something we should be proud about or settle for? No but in life you make choices.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this site take such a clearly indefensible stand -- that someone deserves to get the bejesus beaten out of them if they wear the wrong laundry in a public place -- then so resolutely double and triple and quadruple down on it, insulting everyone along the way. Truly epic trolling.

Really? You must have just recently taken McCoy off ignore then. He does this all the time.

Really? You must have just recently taken McCoy off ignore then. He does this all the time.

I've never put McCoy, or anyone, on ignore on any discussion board I've been on, ever. But I'm sorely tempted to make an exception.

REGISTER GAYS, NOT GUNS

Reminds me of a bit in the Woody Allen movie Sleeper, when Luna comes across a 200-year-old bumper sticker that reads "REGISTER COMMIES, NOT GUNS". "That was from the National Rifle Association," Woody explains. "They were a group designed to give guns to criminals so they could shoot citizens. It was a public service."

No, it's not. But your's most certainly is. You both have no business commenting on anything baseball related since you just joined the stupid club.

Seriously. Stupid.

WTF did I do? I vociferously disagreed with McCoy; I just defended his right to be stupid. Defending someone's right to free speech now makes one stupid? Thanks for the compliment comrade commissar.

Saying someone should be banned forever for saying something stupid is incredibly absurd, and pernicious. I mean this is free speech 101.

What kind of jumped-up totalitarian wannabe responds to an idea you disagree with by saying "Ban Him! Ban Him! His ideas can't be heard!"? If you disagree, argue your point, like 20 other people have managed to do.

Are you such a delicate little flower you can't bear hearing ideas you find offensive? Where were you in the Steubenville rape thread? There are another dozen people you'll need to permanently ban.

Anyone should be free to argue any position no matter how stupid or offensive you or I may find them. Ideas can't hurt you.

I don't think it is stupid to say don't put yourself in dangerous situations and be aware of your surroundings.

And I would agree with that. But, I would say it's stupid to call wearing other teams' apparel to a MLB ballpark, putting "yourself in a dangerous situation". Millions upon millions of people do this annually, and the number of assaults can be counted on one hand. A fan should have every expectation that security can protect him from assault within the stadium and immediate environs.

Now, if you want to argue that the guy was stupid for confronting the jackasses, rather than simply calling security, I'm all ears. That was a bad decision that put him at much greater risk. It was at least 2 to 1, and they had the high ground.

Now, if you want to argue that the guy was stupid for confronting them rather than simply calling security, I'm all ears. That was a bad decision that put him at much greater risk.

I did say that was a mistake on his part.

And I would agree with that. I would say it's stupid to call wearing other teams' apparel to a MLB ballpark, putting "yourself in a dangerous situation".

It isn't the ultimate dangerous situation but there is a history of danger there and putting on a Yankee cap at an Orioles game seems to me be taking on a needless risk for little gain.

Perhaps it is because I grew up going to White Sox games, Bears games, and then later on games in Philadelphia but fights and arguments over petty little things like who you are a fan of seemed to be rather common. That isn't to say that every single person that wears a Mets jersey to a Phillies game got beaten up but I saw enough fights happen because of it that I came to the conclusion that doing stuff like wearing a non-home team jersey to not be worth it.

If someone was to teach a self defense class for women and one of the rules was "Dont put yourself into dangerous situations. Be aware of your surroundings." Would anyone get upset with this piece of advice?

OK? So someone suggests something similar about being in a ball park, dont LOSE YOUR MINDS!

From what I gather and McCoy and the other guy are just mentioning a bit of PROSPECTIVE things to think about. It's not blaming the victim or anything like that.

Well said. We teach our kids from day one to keep themselves out of places that might lead to trouble. There are real jackasses in the world today. If you don't want to deal with them, don't engage them.

The guy made a series of mistakes, small errors in judgement that would be meaningless if he was dealing with rational, sober people. He wasn't, another error in judgment. Pointing out those mistakes isn't blaming the victim or justifying the assault. It's simply pointing out the mistakes.

It isn't the ultimate dangerous situation but there is a history of danger there and putting on a Yankee cap at an Orioles game seems to me be taking on a needless risk for little gain.

Is there? I am unaware of any previous violent incidents. Hell, the Yankees weren't even playing.

Well said. We teach our kids from day one to keep themselves out of places that might lead to trouble. There are real jackasses in the world today. If you don't want to deal with them, don't engage them.

The guy made a series of mistakes, small errors in judgement that would be meaningless if he was dealing with rational, sober people. He wasn't, another error in judgment. Pointing out those mistakes isn't blaming the victim or justifying the assault. It's simply pointing out the mistakes.

Generally concur. But, I disagree that wearing the cap was on of the mistakes.

As I said on page 1, I used to wear a Yankee cap to games at Fenway (both against the Yankees and not) and never felt the tiniest bit threatened. I've been to hundreds of games at Yankee Stadium, and have never seen an opposing fan threatened.

I've seen plenty of confrontations between drunken fans of the same team, but no assaults on people just minding their business.

There is no reasonable grounds to view wearing non-home team apparel as dangerous.

Perhaps it is because I grew up going to White Sox games, Bears games, and then later on games in Philadelphia

OK, this explains it. Chicago is where sports fandom goes to die, and Philadelphia's the town where they booed Santa Claus and kept a jail under the stadium. McCoy must live in constant fear every time he goes to the ballpark: "Oh-oh, I better not do anything or say anything or, God forbid, wear anything that might implore someone to beat the crap out of me, especially since they have at least a 30% right to do so! <whimper>"

There is no reasonable grounds to view wearing non-home team apparel as dangerous.

I went to an O's/Nats game at Nationals Stadium last week. I can't count the number of families, dad/mom/kids, decked out in O's hats and jersies. I observed zero incidents of harassment. Nor did I expect any. But I guess I'm used to people treating others with dignity and respect and sort of take it for granted when it happens.

From McCoy's explanation, he's not accustomed to people treating others with dignity and respect, so his worldview is a bit skewed compared the rest of us, I guess.

If you lived in Philly in the 90's and early 2000's you'd be aware of plenty of incidents.

An anecdote: In 2001 when the Rams were really good a couple from St. Louis made the trip to Philly to watch the season opener of the Eagles against the Rams. Tickets in St. Louis were tough to come by so this guy was given tickets to go see the Rams in Philly as a birthday present from relatives living in the Philly area. The tickets were for seats in the 700 level. So the couple shows up at the game decked out in Rams jersies and they get harassed from the get go. Like what happened to this guy at this Orioles' game the couple had a beer thrown at them but this time I believe it hit the wife. The guy gets up to confront the abusers and gets the ever loving snot beaten out of him. Not only that but the wife gets punched in the face as well.

Generally speaking if you sit in the good seats (read expensive) you'll probably only get good-natured ribbing and if it becomes anything more serious the ushers and security lock it down quickly. If you're sitting in the cheap seats the ribbing isn't always so good natured and team personnel is much slower to respond and react to the situation.

Perhaps it is because I grew up going to White Sox games, Bears games, and then later on games in Philadelphia but fights and arguments over petty little things like who you are a fan of seemed to be rather common. That isn't to say that every single person that wears a Mets jersey to a Phillies game got beaten up but I saw enough fights happen because of it that I came to the conclusion that doing stuff like wearing a non-home team jersey to not be worth it.

Hasn't it been established that Philadelphia is a special case that is generally not applicable to the civilized sporting world? They had a jail at the ballpark, booed Santa Claus and vomited on little girls. IIRC, a Raiders fan was beaten unconscious for wearing his gear at an Eagles game, too. But that is simply not typical of most cities, fortunately.

Wait a minute. Are you claiming you're the victim, instead of the guy who was attacked in the article?? The only thing I've objected to is your wrongheaded opinion that it isn't appropriate or wise to wear the clothing of your choice to a ballpark, if that clothing happens to have the logo of a visiting team on it.

Man, you are paranoid. I think I'll take Srul's advice and drop you into the ignore bucket.

Are you just making things up as you go along? Where have I ever claimed that I'm the victim? I'll also say again that it isn't very wise to wear non-home team clothing to a game. That doesn't mean I think the guy deserved to get attacked or isn't a victim. The guy made numerous mistakes that day but none of those mistakes meant he deserved to get beaten.

Man, you are paranoid. I think I'll take Srul's advice and drop you into the ignore bucket.

McCoy the fact that you even attempt to defend your idiocy should get you banned from this site for life. What ignorant, senseless BS you spout. Can't wear an opposing teams hat to a ball park? Are you a baseball fan or just a complete and total anti-scoial moron?

One thing puzzles me about the "Ignore" business. Why wouldn't someone simply put on Ignore anyone they wouldn't bother or enjoy having a conversation with in real life? It's not a big deal; it isn't blacklisting someone or giving them the finger. It's just someone with whom you feel the signal to noise ratio is too high (or, maybe they're just an #######).

Yes, you certainly treated McCoy with respect and dignity here.

Respect and dignity are earned, not handed out like Halloween candy. Making stupid statements is an excellent way not to be treated with respect and dignity.

What's weird is that actually needed to be said.

Btw, if I feel like someone in this thread was out of line for thinking the injured man's behavior contributed to his injuries, can I assume I can beat the #### out of said poster at the next meet up with impunity, using that same reasoning?

McCoy the fact that you even attempt to defend your idiocy should get you banned from this site for life. What ignorant, senseless BS you spout. Can't wear an opposing teams hat to a ball park? Are you a baseball fan or just a complete and total anti-scoial moron?

I've made it clear I don't agree with McCoy here, but he has expressed himself civilly, something not all his detractors can say.

Respect and dignity are earned, not handed out like Halloween candy. Making stupid statements is an excellent way not to be treated with respect and dignity.

For any bystanders out there, respect and dignity are actually the birthright of all humans, and they're only forfeited in extreme cases. As to stupid statements, I can't imagine how any exchange of knowledge can occur if statements perceived as stupid are treated with disrespect.

Btw, if I feel like someone in this thread was out of line for thinking the injured man's behavior contributed to his injuries, can I assume I can beat the #### out of said poster at the next meet up with impunity, using that same reasoning?

Well, 70% of it would be your fault. But 70's a passing grade, isn't it?

But keep bringing it up. I'm always up for another laugh.

You laugh at the idea of women being raped? I'll bet your wife/mother/sister thinks you're a real peach.

That the family of the victim might behave like ######## is not a good reason to throw somebody in jail for 20 years, who has done nothing to deserve that harsh of a treatment. In fact, it's morally abhorrent.

That there are consequences to actions is the reason that actions have moral content. The notion that it would be a good idea to abstract the consequences from actions when considering question of justice is not simply unintelligible on rational grounds (literally unspeakable) but it undermines the very foundation of morality, justice, and Right.

Punishing someone to placate the friends and families of victims of crimes isn't a miscarriage of justice, it is the very soul of justice. There can be no disagreement on this point.

I always laugh a little when someone on a private message board suggests using the "free speech" shield as a reason for not being banned for saying something stupid/mean

SO what's your pt. That he SHOULD be banned? Correct? That's the only conclusion that I can draw. So you think that's an intelligent way to run a discussion board. Just ban people who dont agree with others on some point or other that's very important to you.

The person doesnt violate a rule of the message board does he? Doesnt shut it down or try to harm others does he?

So that's your message: ban people who disagree with someone or other on some pt or other. That's great. Thanks for your opinion

I'd throw the A's in the ring. TONS of expats from other metros living in the Bay Area, the A's non-core fanbase is fairly apathetic, tickets are cheaply and widely available. At A's/Boston or A's/Yankees it's an easy 50%+ visiting fans.

I was at the Reds/Mets game two weeks ago at Citi Field, and saw a large percentage of fans wearing Reds gear.

Related, but different question: Which teams' fans wear the most home team gear to the games? I've been to games in 40 different stadiums and while I probably didn't notice this kind of thing years ago, I was blown away at a home game in Philly a few years ago. The entire stadium was filled with people wearing red. Some white thrown in there also, of course. But I could not believe the percentage of fans wearing team gear. It swamped everything else.

Maybe it stuck out because of the color, but I don't recall any other stadium even coming close. Dodger stadium was probably next.